![MCMP artwork](https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts49/v4/5f/4f/4d/5f4f4d9b-4da7-2736-ac34-ea432e834bc3/mza_5832746693385114202.jpg/100x100bb.jpg)
Scientific Speculation
MCMP
English - March 13, 2018 12:06 - 25 minutes - 380 MB Video - ★★★★★ - 2 ratingsPhilosophy Society & Culture philosophy logic science language mathematics hannes leitgeb stephan hartmann mcmp lmu Homepage Download Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Overcast Castro Pocket Casts RSS feed
Peter Achinstein (Johns Hopkins Univ. Baltimore) gives a talk at the Workshop on "Why trust a Theory?" (7-9 December, 2015) titled "Scientific Speculation". Abstract: Throughout the history of science controversies have emerged regarding the legitimacy of speculating in science. Three very strong views about the general practice of speculating have emerged: One, very conservative, says “never do it, or at least never publish it.” It is the official doctrine of Isaac Newton: “hypotheses have no place in experimental philosophy.” (Of course, he violated his official doctrine on several occasions). Another, more moderate position is the official doctrine of hypothetico-deductivists such as Whewell, Popper, and Hempel: speculate freely but verify before publishing. The third, the most liberal, is suggested by Feyerabend’s principle of proliferation: speculate like mad, and publish, even when you have no idea how to test your speculations. In my talk I want to reject all three of these views. They are too simple-minded. Some speculations are good ones, some not so good. I will ask how a speculation is to be evaluated. In the process of doing so, I will consider two historically important speculations: James Clerk Maxwell’s kinetic theory speculations from 1860 to 1875, and a speculation that has been put forward by some string theorists, as well as by others, viz. that there is a “theory of everything” (whether or not it is string theory). The first, I will argue, deserves praise, the second does not.